EPDE08/080

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION

4 & 5 SEPTEMBER 2008, UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA, BARCELONA, SPAIN
ON THE ROLE OF FORMGI VI NG I N DESI GN
Shahriman ZAINAL ABIDIN
1,3
, Jhannes SIGURJNSSON
1
, Andr LIEM
1

and Martina KEITSCH
2

1
Department of Product Design, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Norway
2
Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), Norway
3
Department of Industrial Design, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses different interpretations of the word formgiving in design
literature. A comparative study has been made between the two main areas of design,
industrial design (ID) and engineering design (ED). The main findings are that in ID,
the use of the keyword formgiving is related to the artistic visual elements, while in ED
the use of this same keyword is related to the engineering principle solutions. In terms
of the approaches of formgiving in design, for ID, which is related to art and design,
qualitative measurement is the preferred way of documenting the findings, which in this
context refers to the quality or type of form. In ED, which is related to technology and
engineering, quantitative measures are common. Quantitative, in this context, relates to
the quantity or amount of the form. The totality of formgiving can, however, only been
examined by using linguistic interpretations. Finally, within these two areas of design,
the study illustrates that formgiving can also be influenced by aesthetics features. The
aesthetics in this perspective can be interpreted as a study of the effect of formgiving on
human sensations. The focus here is on the appearance or the consequence of the form.
This differs from most previous publications which deal with creation and appreciation
of the form.
Keywords: aesthetics, design, formgiving, shaping
1 I NTRODUCTI ON
In the design process, the most crucial part in making the product appearance
outstanding is during form creation [1]. Form in design means to shape or mould a
particular model into a certain state or shape.
For more than 20 years, the word formgiving or form-giving has been commonly used in
Scandinavian countries. According to the Norwegian dictionary, the meaning of
formgivning or formgjeving is fashioning, moulding: industrial design. Previously,
most of the design authors used the word shaping in the same meaning as formgiving.
Moreover, available Standard English dictionaries do not interpret the meaning of
formgiving. But yet, it seems that the use of the word formgiving has become popular
among many design authors when discussing design practice.
Formgiving, when used in engineering design, relates sometimes to a specific phase in
the design process: the part in which a solution-principle is developed into a
materialized design [2]. Here, the emphasis is on the embodiment; the determination of
form and material, as well as the process of bringing both in line with each other.
EPDE08/080
Figure 1 Four basic visual elements (Akner-Koler, 2000, p.7, and Muller, 2001, p.80)
In this paper, we intend to provide some viewpoints about formgiving based on the
following structure: (1) introduction; (2) elements and properties of product form; (3)
the comparative study of formgiving based on different approaches in design; (4)
discussion; and (5) conclusion. The aim of this study is to uncover the meaning of the
keyword of formgiving and demonstrate how its role contributes to the product
appearance.

2 ELEMENTS AND PROPERTI ES OF PRODUCT FORM
In Industrial Design (ID), the creating of form(s) during designing involves the
understanding of use of basic entities of visual elements (VE) such as point, line, plane
or surface, and volume (see Figure 1), as well as the organization rules and principles
for putting together the composition or structure [3]. VE form part of the attributes of
form that create tone and texture, imparting visual interest and meaning. Their
importance becomes evident through their use in generating images and form(s) that are
both two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D).






According to Wallschlaeger [4], defining and relating the application of VE to visual
studies is sometimes most challenging since the term(s) can be interpreted and used in
different ways, not only in art and design but in other disciplines, especially
engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, and the humanities. To give a clearer
picture, the mathematician may think about defining words such as point, line, plane or
surface, and volume in abstract terms. In geometrical terms, a point has no dimension. It
is only attributed in defining a location or position. A line is thought as a point in
motion within space, and it has only one dimension length. A plane or surface is a flat
surface bound by lines that has the attributes of length and width, but no depth. Volume,
in conceptual terms, is described as a plane in motion of a direction other than its
inherent direction. For example, a 3D form is derived from and enclosed by planes that
have a position in 3D space.
In Engineering Design (ED), the creating of form(s) can be based on several form
generation models. Many of these models are based on principle solutions such as the
problem-solving process [5], and synthesisanalysis order [6]. The problem-solving
process is an activator assisting in the creative process that in a general sense
encompasses a variety of activities with widespread applications [1]. This process is
found in a form as either a structured and unstructured way, and can also result in the
generation of form(s). The problem-solving process also considers the design activity as
a problem to solve [5]. Besides, synthesis-analysis is considered here as a compound
activity as it involves search, exploration and discovery of design solutions, and
composition and integration of these solutions [6].
The use of the method of quantified structure is common in ED in the creation of form.
Tjalve [7] states that quantified structure is used from two points of view that differ by
whether or not the functional connections between the elements can be included. If
EPDE08/080
these functional connections are ignored, the structure variation method gives a number
of suggestions for a very rough construction of the product. If the functional
connections are included, we get a definite further development of the basic structure,
with the aim of optimizing and specifying the parameters involved.
In order to see the gap in different uses of meaning of formgiving in ID and ED, a
comparative study has been carried out.

3 COMPARATI VE STUDY OF FORMGI VI NG BASED ON DI FFERENT
APPROACHES I N DESI GN
Two experts in representing different views on design education have been selected as
case examples in this paper. The first, Cheryl Akner-Koler (Akner-Koler), has been
educated in ID [3], and the second one, Wim Muller (Muller), has been educated in ED
[2].
Akner-Koler states that the evolution of form can be done through several stages such as
join (u-joint, o-joint), intersectional (core), divide (accordance, discordance), adapt
(assimilate, dissimilate), merge (converge, diverge), distort (conform, deform) as well
as organic or geometric (convexo-concave, concavo-convex).







The evolution can be expanded using the manipulation of VE until the designer is able
to select the appropriate form and use it for detailing and further refinement until the
embodiment phases (see Figure 2). This is the sample of form evolution, 3D form
model, bringing geometric structures to organic structures created by Akner-Koler. The
first horizontal axis presents a sequence of geometrically derived forms that gradually
take on organics quality of convexities and concavities. The second axis expands the
model in the vertical dimension to include a bipolar spectrum at each stage. The vertical
dimension opens up a dichotomy (separation of different or contradictory things)
between congruent (with same form) and incongruent properties in relation to the
original features of the geometric form. This makes it seem as if form has been
developed throughout qualitative structure (based on the quality or character of form).
According to Muller, in the beginning of form generation phase, designers have
indicated that the core of design is founding the transition of function into form, and
then, this transition marks the form creation phase through the evolution process. The
difficulty of the transition and the great challenge for designers is the fact that in
principle many solutions are possible and, in addition, not one single correct solution
can be determined for the fulfillment of a technological function.
Many different viewing positions are required to get an impression of formal material
elements and the plasticity of complex touch form. However, Muller illustrates that
Figure 2 Form evolution based on visual elements by Akner-Koler (2000, pp.46-47)
EPDE08/080
form evolution is developed from the primitive object through the topological,
typological and morphological levels, and it does not only refer to exterior geometric
form, but also to the physico-chemical form or material composition of an object.








Muller, in one part of his example, believes that different form compositions act as the
starting point for an exercise in form integration. Starting from a composition, an
integrated whole has to be obtained by means of additive and/or subtractive
transformation by the manipulation of principle solutions through quantitative structure
(see Figure 3). This is similar to the approaches of Tjalve [7] for the quantified
structure. For Akner-Koler and Muller, understanding and perceiving the potential
expressions of form that are embraced in the Form evolution model, a broad
aesthetical attitude to formgiving can be developed. The organizational capacity that is
represented through form and space offers this pluralistic structure that can create
coherency out of seemingly disparate demands.

4 DI SCUSSI ON
An analysis based on the approaches by Akner-Koler and Muller has provided more
similar patterns rather than differences toward the meaning of formgiving as form
creation (see Section 3).

4.1 Design inspired and measurement approaches
While formgiving requires design-inspired approaches, understanding engineering
principle solutions can make the design process easier. Design can be based on patterns
in nature and on mechanical functions. It can also be based on other factors such as the
use of code of language, semantics, symbols, reproductions, or the individual choices of
the designer [7, 8]. In terms of measurement approaches for formgiving in design,
Akner-Koler who relates to art and design prefers qualitative measurement for
documenting findings, while Muller who relates to technology and engineering,
quantitative measures are more commons.

4.2 Formgiving related to the aesthetics
Current design solutions require consideration of aesthetics features all the way from
form surface appearance to making the form marketable. The aesthetics goal of a design
concept toward formgiving is mainly interpreted as a natural (e.g., beautiful or ugly)
form and as a creation for spatial condition. Aesthetics in this context mean the study of
the effect of product gestalt on human sensations [8]. Product gestalt, in turn, is the
arrangement of parts which constitute and function as a whole product, but which is
more than the sum of its parts.
Figure 3 Form evolution based on principle solutions by Muller (2001, p.281)
EPDE08/080
For Muller aesthetics is a measure that gives the impression that beauty benefits from a
high degree of ordering and low complexity; the simpler, the more beautiful is what
theory tells us. However, besides immediate sensuous responses, aesthetics have always
been connected to the function of linguistic interpretations like semantics too.
Semantics includes the dimension of semiosis, and the study of semantic aspects of sign
systems, the production of meaning by signs, as well as their interpretation. The term
Semiosis, was coined by Charles Sanders Peirce as a performance element involving
signs. Semiosis means relationship between what a sign refers to, the representation,
and the understanding of the sign in the mind of the sign receiver. Akner-Koler in
2006 in her article about Expanding the boundaries of form theory: Developing the
model Evolution of form tries to relate aesthetics in the development of form, which
plays an important role in formgiving development. However, her appreciations about
the aesthetics seem similar to Muller who is more focused on sensational aesthetics
aspects.

4.3 Advantages of formgiving development in design education
There are many potential advantages incorporating formgiving understanding; and the
form development process in design education. Since aesthetics play a major role either
in ID and ED, people can correlate formgiving with elegance, efficiency, robustness and
alertness. When formgiving features are incorporated into the layout of modern cars,
people are more likely to perceive the car as elegant, efficient, and good function
performance. It is important for the final product form.
One example is by applying animal form (zoomorphism) to the design. Animal form is
now uses in the styling of modern motorcars design [9]. Many animals are highly
optimized for fast movement and this produces aesthetics features such as curvaceous,
forms, symmetry, wholeness and distinctive body profiles. Here the character of the
Cougar animal is mapped onto the Ford Cougar car (see Figure 4) by reflecting to
prominent features of the animal face (e.g., Headlamp Eye). This kind of similarities
can also be seen in other models of car such as J aguar XK, Volkswagen Beetle, etc.




Since people often associate animals with elegance and efficiency, the use of animal
forms in car styling can lead to form with a wide appeal. In addition, the use of animal
forms is inherently compatible with functional requirements because of the high level of
optimization of nature forms. Instead of animal form, the nonhumans form
(anthropomorphism) which bases its attributes on human characteristics can also been
considered as references in the design. It can be built on to become a more specific
design when embodied agents are designed for specific task and domains like gender,
casting, and recasting [10]. Gender is a primary design feature and should be a critical
consideration in design of embodied agents. Casting is a means of fleshing out agent
personality. Recasting is a means for creating experiences within and across product
use. One important question is how we use cannon-animal form and cannon-nonhumans
form to visualize ideas?
Figure 4 Cougar animal and Ford Cougar car
EPDE08/080
However, the use of metaphors, meaning, symbols, and signs as influence can transmit
formgiving to the aesthetical judgment. Furthermore, the use of analysis based on
semantics and semiotics in relation to aesthetics is expected make form able to capture
human attention.

5 CONCLUSI ON
In this paper, we conclude that the definition for the keyword of formgiving is form
creation, and it deals with the concreteness of aesthetical reasoning in the design
process. There are three levels of form development in design phase: (1) The early
phase, when we question the orientation of the image elements; (2) The middle phase,
when we need to consider the type of form in which we format the image elements; and
(3) The final phase, when we make decisions that lead to a more detailed picture of the
image developed so far. All of these phases involve a well-known transitional process of
form evolution. The finding shows that the use of linguistic interpretations is significant
as a mean of analysis in order to examine formgiving. In terms of the measurement
approaches of formgiving in design, from Akner-Kolers (ID) art and design
perspective, qualitative measurement is the preferred way of documenting the finding.
Meanwhile, from Mullers (ED) technology and engineering perspective, quantitative
measures are common. Finally, within these two areas of design, the study shows that
formgiving can also be influenced by aesthetical features.
Our future work will include exploring the notion of qualitative structure and
quantitative structure throughout the methodology featuring formgiving, in order to
understand how it might change the use of the method underlying the designers way of
thinking.

REFERENCES
[1] Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. Engineering design: A systematic approach. Second edition,
(Springer Verlag, London, 1996).
[2] Muller, W. Order and meaning in design. (Lemma Publishers, Utrecht, 2001).
[3] Akner-Koler, C. Three-dimensional visual analysis. (Reproprint, Stockholm, 2000).
[4] Wallschlaeger, C. and Busic-Snyder, C. Basic visual concepts and principles for artists,
architects, and designers. (McGraw Hill, Boston, Mass., 1992).
[5] Simon, H.A. The new science of management. (Harper, New York, 1961).
[6] Sim, S.K. and Duffy, A.H.B. Towards an ontology of generic engineering design
activities. Research in Engineering Design, 2003, 14 (4), 200-223.
[7] Tjalve, E. Systematic Design of Industrial Products. (Butterworth-Heinemann Publisher,
Kgs. Lyngby, 1976).
[8] Mon, R. Design for product understanding, (Liber, Stockholm, 1997)
[9] Burgess, S.C. and King, A.M. The application of animal forms in automotive styling,
The Design Journal, 2004, Vol. (7-3), 41-52.
[10] Forlizzi, J ., Zimmerman, J ., Mancuso, V. and Kwak, S. How interface agents affect
interaction between humans and computers. Designing Pleasurable Products and
Interfaces, 2007, 209-221.

Shahriman ZAINAL ABIDIN
Department of Product Design
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Kolbjrn Hejes vei 2b, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
shahriman.zainal.abidin@ntnu.no
+47 734 90121